after their kind

And the earth brought forth grass,
and the herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.

And God created great wild beasts,
and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly,after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind,
and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.

Much of the history of biological research has been devoted to discovery and
classification of a seemingly almost unlimited number of plant and animal species (kind?).
In early history this classification had to be based upon physical characteristics of the species
being studied. Many biologists then grouped these species according to their
evolutionary theories based upon these physical characteristics. However, with
the advent and widespread application of molecular systematics in which DNA
sequences are used, a large number of surprises are being discovered. Species
that would seem to be clustered together due to their structural characteristics are
not always genetically similar. Consider a small freshwater fish called the
cichlid. They are scattered through out the Southern Hemisphere and numerous
examples occur in the African lakes of Malawi and Tanganyika. See figure below.

Close examination of the photos will reveal minor differences, but the overall
physical structure of the species are remarkably similar. It could obviously be assumed
that these small fish were all close relatives and
evolved at a single time when possibly the two lakes were joined
into one large fresh water lake. However, recent mitochondial DNA research reveals that
the species in the two lakes are genetically diverse and would have then evolved
independently, multiple times, assuming an evolutionary explanation. While all
of the species pictured from the same lake are genetic relatives,
the look alike species from separate lakes are genetically dissimilar. There have also been
located genetically diverse species in different regions of the same lake, Lake Tanganyika.
(references, numerous publications by authors Axel Meyer, Melanie Stiassny, Erik Verheyen,
Ulrich Schliewen, Lukos Ruber, et al., articles on the cichlids, also
"Genetic and developmental basis of cichlid tropic diversity" by RC Albertson and TD Kocher, 2006 Nature Publishing Group)

Consider the Neandertal genetic story. Recently published was the results of a third
study of their mitochrondial DNA remains. (author Matthias Krings, et al., Natural
Genetics, 26(2000) 144-146; Cell 90(1997) 19-30; Proceedings of the Nat. Acad.
of Sciences, USA 96(1999) 5581-85) The three remains that have been studied to date
had been found in Germany, the Northern Caucasus of Russia, and the latest in Croatia. The
results from each study indicate that Neandertals did not make any genetic contributions
to modern humans, in other words, they were not our evolutionary ancestors. The
Neandertals, while structurally similar to humans, originated independently of modern
humans and had a genetic diversity very comparable to humans and a population dynamics similar to humans.

As more systematic mitochondrial DNA studies are conducted the same story emerges
for many plant and animal genera including mangabey monkeys, river dolphins,
anolis lizards, ranid frogs, bats, sticklebacks, and pericallis ( a genesis of plants related to the sunflower).
There are animal and plant species among each type that have very strong common
physical characteristics but genetically they must have originated separately.
They have many common physical characteristics including the same type eye, the same skeletal
characteristics, undergo the same type larval sequences, have the same brain structure,
identical dental types, etc.. In a recent breeding experiment with the sticklebacks
in a laboratory environment, the genetically dissimilar, but physically similar
species from different lakes tried unsuccessfully to interbreed.
Demonstrating the profound physical and behavioral similarities of the
genetically dissimilar species. (Howard D. Randle et al., Science
287(2000) 306-8) In the case of the mangabeys, when the genetic differences were
discovered the scientists conducted additional skeletal studies and discovered very
minor differences. However, the differences were so slight that it is doubtful
that these differences would have been recognized at all, let alone be accepted as evidence
for a separate classification. (John G. Heagle, et al., Proceedings of the Nat. Acad.
of ScienceS, USA 96(1999): 1157-61)

"... No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time
in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages.
Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time,
and evolution cascades into a radically different channel." (Stephen J. Gould, "
Wonderful Life:..." W.W.Norton & Company, 1989)

How then could an evolutionary process based upon random mutational changes
result in remarkable physical similarities among genetically diverse species
that theoretically originated through separate evolutionary pathways including
different environmental circumstances? How could the eye structure of the
cephalopods (nautili, cuttlefish, squids, and octopods) have evolved to be
remarkably similar to that of the vertebrates when the first requires a totally aquatic
environment and the second a primarily terrestrial environment? The sandlance (a fish)
and the chameleon (a reptile) have a similarly unique eye structure in that they
both use the cornea of the eye to focus on objects using a specialized cornealis
muscle while all other reptiles and fish use the lens of the eye to focus. Again,
how do evolutionary theories explain such amazing occurrences of repeated identical
physical characteristics due to supposedly diverse evolutionary channels?

Conclusion: Scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of the true
meaning of "after their kind" of the creation record and it is proposed that more
and more the Biblical creation record will be verified.